Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Crimson wrote:
It is not. But I do not get why 1+1=2 is so hard to understand. You are buying two weapons. There are rule for buying two weapons, and you have to use it.

And, again, that's not what the rule says. There is no "must" in that statement, only that you CAN do it that way.

"Any Crisis Shas'ui may take up to three items from the Ranged Weapons and/or Support Systems list."

"...A standard, single version" is an item from the Ranged Weapons list. I am nowhere restricted from this option and I can therefore take it three times if I wanted (note: I could only fire two of the three.)

There is ALSO a twin linked version. The key word here is "version."

It also makes a ton of sense mathematically. If I were to take two missile pods (Assault 2) I would do more damage on average and also cost more.

How much extra damage??? Well, at BS 3 I'm going to average 2 hits. With a twin-linked version with two shots I'll run 1.5 hits on average. This gives us a ratio of 2-1.5 or 4/3

and how much more does it cost??? Well, it would cost 30 points to get two of the single versions of the Missile Pod and only 20 points for one twin-linked version. This gives us a ratio of 3/2

So while it ups the damage output of a Crisis suit by 4/3 it costs 3/2 times more. Thats 8/6 and 9/6 respectively if you want the denominators equal. It seems like damn fine rules to me.

 Crimson wrote:

But I do not get why 1+1=2 is so hard to understand. You are buying two weapons. There are rule for buying two weapons, and you have to use it.

It's not 1 + 1 = 2.

It's A + B = A + B.

You have the option to buy a single weapon multiple times.

 Peregrine wrote:

And, again, that's not what the rule says. There is no "must" in that statement, only that you CAN do it that way.

So do you usually treat point costs as suggestions? It is not 'must' because you don't need to give your suits any weapons at all. If marines 'may' purchase a plasmagun at 15 points it means that the price you gotta pay if you want to get one.

 Crimson wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

And, again, that's not what the rule says. There is no "must" in that statement, only that you CAN do it that way.

So do you usually treat point costs as suggestions? It is not 'must' because you don't need to give your suits any weapons at all. If marines 'may' purchase a plasmagun at 15 points it means that the price you gotta pay if you want to get one.

So you do agree with us. If you pay sufficient points to buy 2 separate weapons, you get 2 separate weapons. If you pay the points for the twin linked version, thats what you get.

 Flinty wrote:


So you do agree with us. If you pay sufficient points to buy 2 separate weapons, you get 2 separate weapons. If you pay the points for the twin linked version, thats what you get.

No. There is a specific rule detailing the buying of two weapons and you have to use it if you're buying two weapons.

 Crimson wrote:

 Flinty wrote:


So you do agree with us. If you pay sufficient points to buy 2 separate weapons, you get 2 separate weapons. If you pay the points for the twin linked version, thats what you get.

No. There is a specific rule detailing the buying of two weapons and you have to use it if you're buying two weapons.

While I'm aware that GW will change this so you're correct, and I agree that that is the RAI, it isn't RAW.

The RAW dictates two entities, each with a separate price:

"A", the singular weapon, costing 100 percent of the price.
And "b" the cost of 150% of the weapon's price.

A+A is 200% of the price, but when bought as B, it is 150% of the price.

Buying Two singular weapons is different to buying 1 twin linked weapon.

Let's for a moment pretend that the sentence in parenthesis about twin-linking wouldn't exist. Would people still think that it would be possible to buy two of the same weapon separately?

The the situation appears to me like this: the book says that this is the price for two weapons. Then when buying two weapons, that's the price you have to use. The bit about twin-linking is just an addition, and do not affect the buying process at all (that's why it's in parenthesis.)

OK, I am SO glad this conversation came up and that the back and forth is redundant without anyone adding anything new really for almost 2 pages...lol (Celtic Strike - I like exalt 1/2 your posts - your grasp of English makes me happy)

OK - so a little English lesson for people who are not getting it - When a statement is in parentheses is IGNORED!!!
---Additional information is enclosed in brackets (parenthesis) if the information is not essential for the understanding of the sentence.
---Use parentheses to enclose words or figures that clarify or are used as an aside.
---a word or phrase inserted as an explanation or afterthought into a passage which is grammatically complete without it, in writing usually marked off by brackets, dashes, or comma

So the sentence from the book is this, following the information above:

When a weapon has two point costs, the first is for a standard, single version and the second is for two weapons.
Two weapons count as a twin-linked weapon of the same type.
A twin linked weapon counts as two choices from the this list.

(If you deny this is the proper way to write this sentence without the parenthesis, take it to an English Major, or a teacher or a professor)

So - If you buy one, you pay the first cost, if you buy two, you pay the second cost.. If you buy two, that ARE TWIN LINKED.

The MAJOR issue is that this does not tell you what happens when you buy 3 or 4, which is why I think there is the most confusion. I even brought this to someone who does not even play, and that is the same interpretation they gave (and they are just as smart as the rest of us)....I just don't see how so few people who speak English don't understand its basics....

 Amaraxis wrote:
I even brought this to someone who does not even play, and that is the same interpretation they gave (and they are just as smart as the rest of us)....I just don't see how so few people who speak English don't understand its basics....

Yeah, first think I did when this debate arose was show the text to my girlfriend, who is an English major and doesn't play 40K (yet.) I did not tell her beforehand what I thought. She came to the same conclusion as me.

As I've noted numerous times though, the sentence is not set up in such a way that restricts you to a single way to buy 2 weapons. You can buy them as 2 singles or pay the lower price to get the TL version. Ignoring the parenthesis doesn't alter the fact that if you pay x you get a single version of the weapon and if you pay y you get a double version of the weapon.

Battlesuits get a number of choices from the weapons list. There is nothing in any of the rules presented thus far that prevents you from making multiple selections of any of the choices available.

Flinty, you are ignoring the rules. If rules say 'this is the price for to weapons' then that's the price you have to use when buying two weapons. How can this be so hard?

 Crimson wrote:
Flinty, you are ignoring the rules. If rules say 'this is the price for to weapons' then that's the price you have to use when buying two weapons. How can this be so hard?

I think in general this is dead...some people will never agree and until either - 1. there is an FAQ or 2. People understand the english language (this is more directed at GW then people on here) - we are at an impasse

I would HIGHLY recommend that if you do place two singles on a suit, that you check with the TO before hand (and your opponents in a friendly game) so that there is no arguments that slow the game down...

 Crimson wrote:
Flinty, you are ignoring the rules. If rules say 'this is the price for to weapons' then that's the price you have to use when buying two weapons. How can this be so hard?

You are correct, its very simple. You get what you pay for. If you pay more, you get more. Your interpretation requires an additional restriction on what may or may not be chosen from the weapons lists that does not in fact exist. You may choose 3 (or 4) weapons from the list and pay the appropriate points. If you choose 2 plasma rifles you effectively have a choice in what to do next. You can pay 20 points and the weapons take up 2 slots and are twin linked, or you can pay 15 points per weapon. There is nothing inherent in the choice rules that insists you have to choose the twin linked version. Just because the 20 point choice is a valid choice does not mean that the choosing 2 of the 15 point choices is invalid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think the main difference in opinion comes in how the method of choosing is intepreted. Crimson, I am assuming you see the process as "choose weapons to fill slots and then work out how much this costs". However the rules for choosing weapons doesn't require this approach. You can make 3 or 4 choices from the list. Choice 1 can be single weapon. Choice 2 can be a single weapon of the same type because it is a valid choice in the list. Choice 3 can also be a single weapon of the same type because it is still a valid choice, etc.

 Amaraxis wrote:

Ok - so a little Enlglish lesson
we are at an inpass

Misspellings detracts significantly from your credibility as an authority on the English language. That is to say, if you are so careless with your typing, I am inclined to believe that you are also careless with your comprehension of grammar (and parentheses). (Did you ignore that statement? You shouldn't have.)

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 Amaraxis wrote:

Ok - so a little Enlglish lesson
we are at an inpass

Misspellings detracts significantly from your credibility as an authority on the English language. That is to say, if you are so careless with your typing, I am inclined to believe that you are also careless with your comprehension of grammar (and parentheses). (Did you ignore that statement? You shouldn't have.)

I never said I was the authority - I do my research. I also specifically stated that if you don't believe me - take it to a professional on English. In addition, your logic is extremely faulty in that stating that spelling errors (or in this case, a PoS laptop keyboard) equates to an inability to grasp basic grammar. that is the same as saying 'You didn't add up the points on your army properly, therefore you don't know how to play your army'

The Crisis suit may take up to three items from the ranged weapons, signature systems, or support systems.

The top of page 95 reads "These lists detail the points values of various items..."

Each weapon is an item. I can have three.

this is really an interesting debate. I'll be putting a single of the same gun on multiple arms for now and slapping a third of that same type on as a magnet option so that if some one disagree with the 1-and-1 interpretation I'll just take 1 T/L and 1 normal and call it a day.

The RAW debate aside, I am also fairly sure that GW intended that two weapons always get twin-linked, and that is the way it will be clarified in the FAQ. If you could have two separate weapons, this would create a situation where from WYSIWYG standpoint two different configurations look identical. I'd assume they'd want to avoid that.

 Crimson wrote:
The RAW debate aside, I am also fairly sure that GW intended that two weapons always get twin-linked, and that is the way it will be clarified in the FAQ. If you could have two separate weapons, this would create a situation where from WYSIWYG standpoint two different configurations look identical. I'd assume they'd want to avoid that.

I'll likely model T/L Weapons on the same arm in my config, unless I want the third gun on their heads I guess, lol

I'd probably do the same although FW went in a different direction with the xv-81 by mounting the TL SMS on the backpack. I like that config and I've never had anyone be confused about any weapon arrangement once you explain what your modelling scheme is...

 Crimson wrote:
The RAW debate aside, I am also fairly sure that GW intended that two weapons always get twin-linked, and that is the way it will be clarified in the FAQ. If you could have two separate weapons, this would create a situation where from WYSIWYG standpoint two different configurations look identical. I'd assume they'd want to avoid that.

That is a distinct possibility, but if so then why did they bother changing the really rather precise text from the previous codex?

 Flinty wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
The RAW debate aside, I am also fairly sure that GW intended that two weapons always get twin-linked, and that is the way it will be clarified in the FAQ. If you could have two separate weapons, this would create a situation where from WYSIWYG standpoint two different configurations look identical. I'd assume they'd want to avoid that.

That is a distinct possibility, but if so then why did they bother changing the really rather precise text from the previous codex?

Well it IS Games workshop, they tend to miss things or change things without thinking it through (vehicle sms vs burst cannon )

 Flinty wrote:

That is a distinct possibility, but if so then why did they bother changing the really rather precise text from the previous codex?

I don't know. They do this from time to time. They reword a rule and people assume it has changed, even though they just said it differently. And to me it seems precise enough; maybe it did to Vetock too? But of course this thread is evidence enough that they have to clarify what they actually meant.

Just for the sake of completeness in the discussion, the text for the Crisis Suit entry in the army list uses the word 'may' select up to three items from the Support Systems and/or ranged weapons lists, not 'must'.

The use of the word 'may' in this sentence makes it permissive, whereas 'must' (like in the old dex) would have made it a requirement.

So in fact you may take nothing or three of the same type of wargear, or weapon for that matter.

The text under the Ranged Weapons clearly states that a weapon costs X points. If you desire a TLed weapon it costs Y points. I believe this brief little paragraph in the Dex contains a redundancy which is causing the disagreement. The only thing that is abundantly clear is that a TL weapon counts as two choices, not that two of the same weapon automatically and will always count as a TLed version of said weapon.

To paraphrase the redundancy that I see;

'...two weapons...'

and

'...two choices...'

That is the redundancy.

It's almost like GW was so worried about the possibility of people arguing over whether or not a TLed weapon counted as one choice or two that they totally missed the possibility of people arguing over whether or not you could take 2 single versions of the same weapon.

I for one believe that the wording in the back half of that paragraph is an over clarification regarding the total number of options a suit takes, and does not actually restrict you from taking two single versions at a higher point cost than one twin-linked version.

Ultimately though, I do think it needs an FAQ as the wording is so clunky that it creates this ambiguity.

On a side note, what do you guys think of running a suit with only one or two options (remember 'may') instead of the full three in smaller points games in order to save points for use elsewhere?

(edited for grammar)

 Shas'O...Crap wrote:

On a side note, what do you guys think of running a suit with only one or two options (remember 'may') instead of the full three in smaller points games in order to save points for use elsewhere?

It's a valid option. I've almost decided on an entire two-option unit - a few guys with Plasma/Fusion and then a CnC suit with Puetide/CnC/Onager attached to Farsight for a deepstrike surprise.

synchronicity wrote:For reference, Tau Codex

Where a weapon has two points costs, the first is for a standard, single version, and the second is for two weapons (counting as twin-linked weapon for that type). A twin-linked weapon counts as two choices from this list.

The more and more I read this statement, the more and more I find myself in the camp that says you can take two single choices. This, of course, isn't to say that the other argument is not valid. I can see where they are coming from and what they are trying to say.

However, I see it as this: I can spend X amount of points, get as many single weapons as my slots can carry OR I can spend Y amount of points and get a discounted, bundled and twinlinked version of that weapon. They are forced to work together in concert and take up two slots but I am spending fewer points overall.

Arguing over what GW had intended with these rules at this point is well, pointless. The more and more I read people trying to angrily justify their perspective the more and more everyone starts to look like religious zealouts who disagree on what their deity intended with the teachings. None of you know for sure what was intended by this writing and nobody will more than likely ever know. If you are in my camp (Two single weapons option), you will more than likely have to ask your opponent before the game if this is okay before you play until there is an errata. Because of this, I feel the argument will have to be set at a stalemate until an FAQ comes out to clarify it and, unfortunately, that could take a while :<

Reading the RAW it speaks only of point values.

Where a weapon has two points costs, the first is for
a standard, single version, and the second is for two
weapons (counting as a twin-linked weapon of that type).
A twin-linked weapon counts as two choice from this list.

This doesn't say anything about what you can or can not take, it simply tells you that to utilize the second points choice is to take two weapons which count as a twin-linked system. It doesn't prohibit you from taking two single choices of the same item, or tell you that taking two must use the second value. It simply gives you an extremely efficient way to Twin-link your systems, if that's what you want. I understand everyone's concerns over suits running around dual Fusion Blastering//Plasma Rifling, but until GW explicitly states yes or no this is a pretty clear cut case of there's no rule specifically against it.

So I just care about running Suits with TL BC/ BC (paying 15 / 10 respectively for them) to make a Hailstorm build:

Commander (upgrades)
-Airbursting Frag
-BC
-Drone Controller
-Shield Drones
-Extra special toys

Crisis Suits
-TL BC/ BC
-TL BC/ BC
-TL BC/ BC
-6x Gun Drones

So I can have 40 S5 shots, 24 Twin Linked plus the Airburst. Death by a million cuts, but really I just wanna roll a bunch of dice with some mechs.

Is that a legal load out considering I'm paying the 15/10 for the Crisis Suits?

So it would seem...